IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 18/17, 4th Floor, WEA, Circle-7(1), Pusa Lane, Dhaka House, New Delhi Karol Bagh, Delhi PAN:AAACE0138N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv.

Sh. Ankit Sahani, Adv.

Department by Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing 11.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.03.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-44 DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2021- 22/1041513865(1), dated 25.03.2022 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the order passed by the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 44 [Ld. CIT(A)"), to the extent confirming Assessing Officer's ["AO"] action, is bad in law and void ab-initio

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not allowing deduction in respect of Provision created on account of litigation of INR 15,155,582.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/CIT(A), has erred in not considering a lower tax withholding rate of 5% (as provided in other country DTAAs with India e.g. Slovenia, Lithuania, Colombia), on dividend paid to Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, a Swedish company applying the 'most favoured nation clause, as per the protocol to the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") between India and Sweden.

3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the dividend income of the non-resident being governed by the provisions of India-Sweden DTAA and therefore, in terms of section 90(2) read with section 10(34) of the Act, could not be subjected to a rate in excess of the rate prescribed under the DTAA and hence, erred in subjecting the Appellant to additional income tax in terms of section 115-0 of the Act.

3.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to grant refund of the excess dividend distribution tax withheld, since as per the provisions of section 237 of the Act read with Article 265 of the Constitution of India, only legitimate tax could be recovered from the Appellant.

4. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction in respect of Education Cess ("EC") and Secondary Higher Education Cess ("SHEC") paid on Income Tax of 65,235,132 for computing the total income as per the provisions of the Act.

5. Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 3-3.2 above, in case the rate of DDT is not restricted based on the beneficial provisions of the India- Sweden tax treaty, cess of INR 2,94,52,500 paid on DDT should be allowed as deduction for computing the total income as per the provisions of the Act.

6. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/CIT(A) has erred in not allowing complete credit of Tax Deducted at Source of INR 3,276,930,422

7. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/CIT(A) has erred in not allowing complete Foreign Tax Credit u/s

90/91 of INR 1,793,404 That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and notwithstanding each other, That the appellant reserves its right to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. Any consequential relief, to which the appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, m